While AI accelerates code generation, it creates significant new chokepoints. The high volume of AI-generated code leads to "pull request fatigue," requiring more human reviewers per change. It also overwhelms automated testing systems, which must run full cycles for every minor AI-driven adjustment, offsetting initial productivity gains.

The creative process with AI involves exploring many options, most of which are imperfect. This makes the collaboration a version control problem. Users need tools to easily branch, suggest, review, and merge ideas, much like developers use Git, to manage the AI's prolific but often flawed output.

As AI coding agents generate vast amounts of code, the most tedious part of a developer's job shifts from writing code to reviewing it. This creates a new product opportunity: building tools that help developers validate and build confidence in AI-written code, making the review process less of a chore.

Tools like Git were designed for human-paced development. AI agents, which can make thousands of changes in parallel, require a new infrastructure layer—real-time repositories, coordination mechanisms, and shared memory—that traditional systems cannot support.

Simply deploying AI to write code faster doesn't increase end-to-end velocity. It creates a new bottleneck where human engineers are overwhelmed with reviewing a flood of AI-generated code. To truly benefit, companies must also automate verification and validation processes.

Widespread adoption of AI coding tools like Cursor dramatically increases code output, shifting the primary development bottleneck from writing to reviewing. This creates a market for collaboration tools like Graphite and drives consolidation as platforms race to own the end-to-end developer loop.

As AI writes most of the code, the highest-leverage human activity will shift from reviewing pull requests to reviewing the AI's research and implementation plans. Collaborating on the plan provides a narrative journey of the upcoming changes, allowing for high-level course correction before hundreds of lines of bad code are ever generated.

While AI coding assistants appear to boost output, they introduce a "rework tax." A Stanford study found AI-generated code leads to significant downstream refactoring. A team might ship 40% more code, but if half of that increase is just fixing last week's AI-generated "slop," the real productivity gain is much lower than headlines suggest.

AI tools can generate vast amounts of verbose code on command, making metrics like 'lines of code' easily gameable and meaningless for measuring true engineering productivity. This practice introduces complexity and technical debt rather than indicating progress.